4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Senec.
5.  On 7 May 1998 the applicant and his wife brought an action against two individuals, a married couple, arguing that the defendants had failed to pay the claimants a part of the price agreed upon for the sale of the claimants’ house to the defendants. Accordingly, the claimants sought an order for the payment of the equivalent of some 25,700 euros (EUR).
For the ease of reference, hereinafter in this judgment the applicant will be referred to in singular although his actions may have concerned him jointly with his wife.
6.  The claim was first registered at the Bratislava II District Court under file no. 15C 130/98.
7.  On 7 June 1998 the Bratislava II District Court discontinued the proceedings on account of the applicant’s failure to pay the court fees. The applicant subsequently filed an appeal and – in response to a court’s request – provided further and better particulars of his appeal specifying that, on 6 October 1998, the court fees had been paid.
8.  On 30 November 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the decision of 7 June 1998 and remitted the case to the Bratislava II District Court for examination on the merits.
9.  A hearing called for 24 February 1999 had to be adjourned because it had proven impossible to serve the summons on the defendants. Following the establishment of their new address, on 23 April 1999 the case was transferred to the Bratislava III District Court for reasons of territorial jurisdiction. It was registered there under file no. 33 C 47/99.
10.  On 2 December 1999, following a hearing held on the same day, the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of related civil proceedings (file no. 19 Cb 64/97) which were concluded with final and binding effect on 22 December 2002 (see paragraph 28 below).
11.  Meanwhile, on 4 February and 3 March 2000, respectively, the applicant had requested that the Bratislava III District Court had issued an interim measure preventing the defendants from making dispositions in respect of the house concerned.
12.  Between 8 February 2001 and 28 March 2007 the Bratislava III District Court listed six hearings. Two of them were not attended by the applicant’s lawyer and two of them were not attended by the applicant. One of the hearings was adjourned in view of the parties’ desire to settle and they were ordered to inform the court of the results of their negotiations within 30 days. As they had not done so, the court had to send two reminders. Meanwhile the case had been reassigned to a new judge.
13.  On 13 June 2007, following a hearing held on the same day, the Bratislava III District Court again decided to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a set of enforcement proceedings, which were pending before that court at that time under file no. 34 E 1015/03. In those proceedings, the applicant was the defendant and one of the present defendants was the claimant (see paragraphs 28 et seq. below).
14.  On 24 September and 28 December 2007, respectively, the applicant appealed against the decision of 13 June 2007 to stay the proceedings and requested that the Bratislava III District Court schedule a hearing.
15.  On 1 January 2008 the case-file was transmitted to the Pezinok District Court in the context of reorganisation of the judiciary and it was registered there under file no. 4 C 723/08.
16.  On 28 November 2008 the applicant requested the Pezinok District Court to schedule a hearing.
17.  On 12 December 2008 the Pezinok District Court transmitted the case-file to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the applicant’s appeal of 24 September 2007 against the decision of the Bratislava III District Court of 13 June 2007 to stay the proceedings, which had not been determined by then. At the Bratislava Regional Court, the appeal was registered under file no. 7 Co 48/08.
18.  On 23 November 2009 the applicant complained to the President of the Pezinok District Court about undue delay in the proceedings. In a letter of reply dated 17 December 2009 the Vice-President of the Pezinok District Court informed the applicant that the case-file was still with the Bratislava Regional Court. Her court was thus not in a position to proceed with the case and the applicant’s complaint was ill-founded.
19.  On 7 January and 24 February 2010, respectively, the applicant requested the Bratislava Regional Court to proceed with his case and complained to its President about undue delay in the proceedings.
20.  In a letter of reply dated 23 March 2010 the Vice-President of the Bratislava Regional Court acknowledged that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings, apologised to the applicant, and informed him that he would keep the progress in the case under observation in order to  ensure that no further unjustified delay occurred.
21.  On 31 March 2010 the Bratislava Regional Court determined the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Bratislava III District Court of 13 June 2007 to stay the proceedings by quashing it. In consequence, the case was remitted to the Pezinok District Court for examination on the merits.
22.  On 4 November 2010, following a hearing held on the same day, the Pezinok District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It found that the applicant’s claim had been set off against an adjudicated counter-claim of one of the defendants which he had bought from a creditor of the applicant. The principal amount of the counter-claim in question was equal to the amount of the applicant’s claim and consisted of a penalty that the applicant was to pay to the creditor for breach of a contract under which the applicant was to carry out certain construction works for the creditor.
23.  On 19 September 2012 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 4 November 2010 concurring fully with the conclusions of the Pezinok District Court. No appeal lay against the Regional Court’s judgment.
24.  On 16 May 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, alleging a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings in his action of 7 May 1998 before the Bratislava III District Court, and seeking damages in the amount of EUR 75,000.
25.  On 4 September 2007 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right, awarded him the equivalent of EUR 890 in just satisfaction, and ordered the Bratislava III District Court to proceed without further undue delay.
The Constitutional Court examined exclusively the part of the proceedings having taken place before the Bratislava III District Court and took into account its established case-law to the effect that no delays could have occurred in the proceedings while they were stayed.
As regards the amount of just satisfaction, the Constitutional Court took into consideration the fact that the applicant had partly contributed to the length of the proceedings by his and his lawyer’s absence at hearings and by the late notification of the outcome of the friendly-settlement negotiations.
26.  On 18 March 2009 the applicant lodged a fresh constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings directing it both against the Bratislava III District Court and the Pezinok District Court and seeking EUR 83,000 in damages.
27.  On 29 September 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that, as regards the Bratislava III District Court, the matter was a res iudicata by its judgment of 4 September 2007 and, as to the Pezinok District Court, the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of ordinary remedies by raising the complaint first before the president of that court.
28.  On 16 May 2003 one of the buyers of the applicant’s house lodged a petition against the applicant for enforcement of a claim that he had bought from the applicant’s creditor (see paragraph 22 above). The claim had been adjudicated by the Bratislava III District Court in its judgment of 3 December 2001 (file no. 19 Cb 64/97), as upheld on appeal by the Bratislava Regional Court on 12 June 2002 (file No. 24 Cob 98/02), which had become final and binding on 22 December 2002.
29.  The petition was registered with the Bratislava III District Court under file no. 34 Er 105/2003 and, on 23 May 2003, that court authorised a judicial enforcement officer (“JEO”) to carry out the enforcement. At the JEO’s office, the petition case was registered under file no. Ex 144/03.
30.  On 29 May 2003 the JEO issued a notice of enforcement, by which he notified the applicant that enforcement proceedings had commenced against him and that the enforcement would be carried out by forcible sale of real property belonging to the applicant.
31.  On 19 June and 29 October 2003, respectively, the applicant lodged a protest against the enforcement and its costs and the protest was dismissed by the Bratislava III District Court. The decision became final and binding on 23 March 2004.
32.  On 14 June 2004 the JEO issued a warrant for the enforcement by sale of the applicant’s real property mentioned above.
33.  Between 12 July 2005 and 28 March 2007 the applicant’s wife also filed a protest against the enforcement; the value of the property was established by an expert; the applicant lodged an objection against the expert’s report, requested three times that the enforcement be deferred, and in the absence of a decision once requested that all of these applications be judicially determined.
34.  On 15 February 2007 the property in question was sold at a public auction. The JEO subsequently sought an approval of the sale by the Bratislava III District Court. At the same time, he transmitted the applicant’s objections against the sale to the District Court for a judicial determination.
35.  On 6 November 2007 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Bratislava III District Court about the length of the enforcement proceedings. He has received no answer.
36. On 1 January 2008, in the context of reorganisation of the judiciary, the case-file was transmitted to the Pezinok District Court where it was registered under file no. 15 Er 1777/08.
37.  On 23 February 2009 the Pezinok District Court allowed the applicant’s objections and declined its approval for the sale on the grounds that no decision had been taken in respect of the various applications by the applicant and his wife (see paragraph 33 above) and that the expert report as to the value to the sold property was flawed, for which the expert had been found disciplinarily liable.
The proceedings appear thereby to have ended.
38.  On 1 April 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the enforcement proceedings directing it both against the Bratislava III District Court and the Pezinok District Court and seeking some EUR 106,000 in damages.
39.  In preparation for the examination of the complaint, the Constitutional Court invited the applicant to substantiate whether he had complained about the contested delays in the proceedings to the presidents of the courts concerned. In response, the applicant’s lawyer submitted a copy of the applicant’s submission of 6 November 2007 and a document by the postal service certifying that an item had been posted on that day addressed to the Constitutional Court.
40.  On 10 September 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It noted that according to observations by the Bratislava III District Court in reply to the applicant’s constitutional complaint, the District Court had no knowledge of any submission by the applicant of 6 November 2007.
The Constitutional Court further observed that the postal document submitted by the applicant merely showed that an item had been sent but not that it had been received and thereby effectively submitted to the president of the court concerned.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant had failed to show that he had raised his complaint first before the presidents of the courts in question. He could accordingly not be considered as having satisfied the requirement of exhaustion of ordinary remedies.
In addition, the Constitutional Court observed that the applicant himself had requested several times that the enforcement be deferred which was not indicative of his proclaimed desire to have the proceedings completed early.